Cunningham

Cunningham v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2013A138551California647 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pollak, J.

Background On December 19, 2012, plaintiff filed an 82-page complaint against defendants.3 Defendants promptly moved for and obtained an order requiring plaintiff to furnish security in the amount of $750,000 under section 391.1. On April 5, 2013, after plaintiff failed to furnish the required security, judgment was entered dismissing the action. On April 15, plaintiff, appearing in propria persona, filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of dismissal. On April 22, this court rejected his filing and notified plaintiff that as a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order he could not appeal without permission. On April 23, plaintiff applied to this court for permission to appeal the April 5 judgment. This court denied the application, determining that plaintiff had “failed to show a reasonable possibility that his appeal has merit.” On April 29, plaintiff, now represented by counsel, filed a notice of appeal of the April 5 judgment. On August 9, 2013, plaintiff, again appearing in propria persona, filed his opening brief.4 Thereafter, defendants filed motions to dismiss and alternatively, to require plaintiff to furnish security under various provisions of the vexatious…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.